I just heard about this this morning.
In a nutshell here's the deal:
• The BBC reported that forecasts by serious scientists say the earth is cooling.
• A global warming "activist" (what exactly IS that?) called, wanting them to change the story.
• The BBC did just that.
Now this is so staggering on so many levels, I'm finding it difficult to organize my thoughts about it.
It calls into question every single "report" we have every heard about global warming. If a major news outlet is willing to change the FACTS of a story to fit a political agenda, how do we ever trust that they tell the truth about anything?
What exactly is a global warming "activist" who would call a news outlet and convince them to tell lies about a story rather than the truth, in order to further his special agenda?
And what could a global warming activist's special agenda be if global warming is not true?
I can only think of two possibilities: POWER and MONEY.
Now, a person who gets people to believe in things that aren't true...in order to get their money or power is called a "swindler".
Not an "activist".
He's also called a "criminal" and a "liar".
So I guess the real story is: the BBC accidentally printed a factual science report that contradicts the hoax that is "global warming". They didn't realize what they'd done until one of their partner swindlers freaked out and called them ranting about how the story was hurting their so-far-successful swindle...and that if the hustle was going to come down, and they were going to reap millions from the stupid "marks" [taxpayers & citizens], the BBC had to delete that info ASAP.
Thus was it done.
See the actual report on this at New Busters. It just gets worse...!
The Gunslinger
Joebama American citizens 2024 print
9 months ago
She is offering a more balanced view of the science behind global warming. That is not a swindle. I can't understand why it is so hard to admit that there is room for debate even as more evidence is collected and studied. Prudence is called for when the gamble is on the fate of the entire planet.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's not like lowering pollution is a bad thing.
But you see, the people who actually pollute are exempt.
ReplyDeleteSo even it was true, which it is not, this cannot be a solution, because it does not address the actual problem.
It is a farce and a hoax of gigantic proportions.
And Al Gore is getting filthy...I mean, FILTHY rich.
Remember...."FOLLOW THE MONEY" if you want to know the truth.
The gamble is over the climate, not the entire planet and that is a very important distinction. When high tech farmers want to make an environment good for plants they trap radiation and gas into a "greenhouse". This "greenhouse" has more C02 and heat than the outside and is more suitable for lifeforms that consume radiation and C02 to grow.
ReplyDeleteThis is why during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Industrial Revolution was burgeoning, wine was being grown in Norway and exported to France.
Jag,
ReplyDeleteI would welcome intelligent debate on the global warming issue. Why is it that the agore is so opposed?
You and I have been at odds over the bio-fuel issue. I offer for your perusal this:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/environment/time-to-kill-crop%11derived-biofuels-200803291126/
The problem with liberals is that, once they have glommed onto an idea that sounds good, they refuse to debate or think beyond the confines of that idea. Unless of course, as the Gun stated, there happens to be money at stake. In this case they become so agitated that anyone would question them, that they become apoplectic.
Gun - show me the proof that it's a hoax and I'll be happy. Instead I see lots of evidence to the contrary. I'm sure the people making money by refuting Global Warming all have our best interests in mind, too. By facts and reason, it is clear there is something worth considering in global warming, especially as more evidence is presented (for or against). I don't care who says what so long as it is factual.
ReplyDeleteAnon - sure, there could be alternate explanation besides manmade CO2 emissions. It doesn't mean that warming isn't being caused by man. That's the whole idea - figure out what's going wrong and what the consequences will be (which could be very drastic - you're right though, it's not as if the world's going to end tomorrow if we don't do something).
Adog - There is plenty of promising research being done with biofuels. Sure corn is not the answer (by the basic laws of thermodynamics!) On the other hand, sugarcane actually is more efficient and produces less carbon, but doesn't grow well in the US. Hopefully in the next 5-10 years there will be a viable alternate energy source (switchgrass, sewage, algae, wind, who knows?). Sometimes you make it sound like half of the country is good people and half is bad because they're liberal. All I can say is that there are plenty of issues where Conservatives act the same way (gay marriage for example).
Jag,
ReplyDeleteI'm not discounting the idea that it can be done, in fact I'm watching with interest what they're doing at Bell Bio-Energy and keeping my fingers crossed. In the mean time, a good rule of thumb is, if it requires subsidies or mandates it probably isn't a very sound idea to begin with.
As far as your half and half theory,that's something you came up with on your own. The 'good guys' only number about twenty percent (I hope it's that high). These are the common sense Conservatives. Not the hard core religious right, the homophobes or the easily led militia types. I'm talking about the people who are sick and tired of the government believing that every nuance of a person's life requires legislation, a government dictating ad hoc solutions to non-existent problems, a society where personal responsibility has gone by the wayside
Damn, I hit the publish instead of the preview and I wasn't finished yet.
ReplyDeleteIn essence Jag, we're not becoming a Nanny State, we're already there.
As far as the 'bad half', I put that at about fifteen percent. (I hope it's that low). These are the hypocritical liberals who demand that the rest of the country fall into step with them. They are so absolutely stuck on themselves that they're amazed anyone would question their agenda. And that, my friend, is why you won't get debate, intelligent or otherwise, on global warming.
Sixty percent don't bother to get truly educated about the issues. If they vote, they tend to vote as a bloc (unions), because of peer pressure (young people in particular), family history, media sway and political campaigning; they vote what I call the feel good ticket.
The remaining five percent(I doubt that it's that high but WTF, the math works) of our population is made up of people such as yourself, who obviously think, but often don't have enough life experience to see through the bullshit; this isn't a criticism, it just is what it is. This five percent is also made up of people who've had a life altering experience that makes them question past loyalties whether they were conservative or liberal.
The answer is in getting any part of the sixty percent to start truly thinking beyond what they've been programed to believe, left or right. I'm a Conservative, but I have a problem with the Patriot Act, I believe Roe v. Wade should stand (with a minor modification), I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman but I don't think we need the Federal government to tell us this, I've never been sure that we should have gone to Iraq but now that we're there we damned well better stay to see it through. I think you'll find that there's a great deal more room for discussion and debate on the Conservative side of the fence than on the liberal side.
There you have it, AlphaDog Math 101. Any questions?
Jag,
ReplyDeleteAgore & Company is making wild claims not backed by science. There is simply no evidence for his absurd claims. He is a bullshit artist. I don't have to prove his crap is untrue. He has to prove it is true.
Which he has not done.
He has merely persuaded very gullible people with his snake oil patter.
What you see is not "evidence", what you see is a new evangelical faith, propped up with smoke and mirrors.
Al Gore states that man putting more Co2 into the atmosphere is causing the temperature on earth to rise, this is impossible:
ReplyDelete, Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.
So there...yeah....whatever he said!
ReplyDelete